8/10 - There was some really really great stuff, but some other parts I struggled with.

__________________Chris: This is a sports network. Our sponsors expect us to project an image of good health and clean living.Dan: I'll think about that next time I'm reporting on how the Miller Genuine Draft car did in the Winston Cup.

I rate a movie on what it sets out to achieve, for instance you can't compare Fast 5 and The Godfather as they set out to be very different things, however I'd give them the same mark in the end, they'd just get it for excelling at their chosen type of film, the key isn't in the mark itself, it's in the reasoning for the mark..

__________________"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"

I rate a movie on what it sets out to achieve, for instance you can't compare Fast 5 and The Godfather as they set out to be very different things, however I'd give them the same mark in the end, they'd just get it for excelling at their chosen type of film, the key isn't in the mark itself, it's in the reasoning for the mark..

Exactly, you can't compare say Friday the 13th to the Usual Suspects but you could give them the same rating cause the only thing you can really compare them to or rate them against is films of the same ilk.

Would you rank a really disgusting torture-porn flick as highly as The Godfather, then?

I don't watch the former as I hate that sub genre, but I'll go you one better, I'd rate Blades of Glory and Miss Congeniality as 9/10 in the same post that I'd rate Godfather 9/10, they are all the same marks as they all do (for me) what they set out to do, well.

__________________"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"

Sure, but the point I was angling at is that some genres might be perceived as inherently more meritorious than others. Drawing the confines of a genre is not itself objective, and the genre in which a film is placed can reflect the quality that a reviewer might ascribe to it.

Sure, but the point I was angling at is that some genres might be perceived as inherently more meritorious than others. Drawing the confines of a genre is not itself objective, and the genre in which a film is placed can reflect the quality that a reviewer might ascribe to it.

Well I don't look at one genre as more meritorious than the other, to me it's just as big of an achievement to make a big entertaining spectacle with heart and imagination, filled with great action (an art form in itself), characters that you root for and material that makes you come out feeling good, as it is to make a film about a kid who lives on a floating garbage dump with her abusive father who has a heart condition, but that's just me.

__________________"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"

Just got back from my first viewing. I am as far from a proper critic as possible so take that into account - Had an absolute blast watching my favourite sh character brawl it out with the city-levelling destruction of a hectic cartoon.

Maybe the pacing was up and down, I kinda felt that without analysing the feeling, and I would've enjoyed a bit more 'happy' Superman. Not a huge fan of Pa Kent's death either.

But this film was a spectacle, an experience. I've watched pretty much every sh film (like most here) and this is the real deal when it comes to "what happens when you get massively powerful beings busting it up. I loved how, seriously, without Superman humanity was buggered even if just Zod survived.

Well I don't look at one genre as more meritorious than the other, to me it's just as big of an achievement to make a big entertaining spectacle with heart and imagination, filled with great action (an art form in itself), characters that you root for and material that makes you come out feeling good, as it is to make a film about a kid who lives on a floating garbage dump with her abusive father who has a heart condition, but that's just me.

And I agree with you, but the approach of rating things purely in reference to their objectives, as you put it, must have its logical limits. Otherwise "The Human Centipede", which is clearly just meant to shock, is as good as "The Godfather", which intends to render a compelling human drama reflecting on the corrupting influence of power, pride and aspiration.

And I agree with you, but the approach of rating things purely in reference to their objectives, as you put it, must have its logical limits. Otherwise "The Human Centipede", which is clearly just meant to shock, is as good as "The Godfather", which intends to render a compelling human drama reflecting on the corrupting influence of power, pride and aspiration.

Which is why I feel that judging things PURELY on emotion, is wrong. But I also think looking around for witty dialog, strong characters, and consistent thematic statements is also not the best way to judge cinema, because it hampers the film as an experience. I think it's the blend of both criteria, the gut reaction and the critical analysis that provides the best idea of assessing the quality of the movie. But maybe that's just me.

And I agree with you, but the approach of rating things purely in reference to their objectives, as you put it, must have its logical limits. Otherwise "The Human Centipede", which is clearly just meant to shock, is as good as "The Godfather", which intends to render a compelling human drama reflecting on the corrupting influence of power, pride and aspiration.

Yes I'd agree that there is a limit to that reasoning, although I am sure someone could say they love shock value films and therefore it's a 9/10 for them on the ratings scale as it delivered what they felt it set out to achieve.

However to clarify my stance I am merely saying that if I we took Die Hard (action thriller), The Godfather (Crime drama), TDK (Comic book adaption) and Naked Gun (Spoof comedy) I'd rate them all equally as they are the epitome of achievement in their respective genres and I don't value one genre over another.

In the case of MOS I personally didn't rate it up with the very best but I respect that for some it may be in the position I place TDK on my above ratingometer.

__________________"Now this life is etched in black but I wont be looking back, the rain washed out the tracks, I'll never find again"

I know i'm very late to the party but i just got back from seeing MOS in IMAX 3D.It gets an 8/10 from me.

Strong/solid performances from pretty much everyone and lots of exhilarating (too much, yes too much) action that may have been better spent fleshing out characters. Loved Cavill and the new theme though nothing beats Williams' Superman march.

I've had a long day. It's late so i'm off to bed now and will hopefully soar in my dreams like Superman.

__________________Michael Joseph Jackson 1958-2009. Gone Too Soon.
May he finally find the peace that eluded him in life.There is only ONE Spider-Man. His name is Peter Parker. He's an adult, and he's straight!

Late to the party. Someone I know noticed all the Superman comic books in my home and decided to give me a free ticket for this as a kind gesture before it left the big screen. So now that I've finally seen it and without getting into paragraphs since most have covered my gripes with this one all over this board already I have to say it's a 6.5/10 if I had to rate it on a 10 point scale.

Like Superman Returns it was pretty imbalanced. Many things that movie did wrong this one did right and vice versa. I particularly disliked the most selfish version of Pa Kent I've ever seen and the terrible acting by young Clark who was even worse than young Bruce in BB who's performance I felt sucked.

Cavill showed the great potential many of us saw in him in for the role years ago when we kept bringing him up here in the casting threads but isn't quite there yet. Maybe by the next one he'll be all in. We still haven't gotten the definitive Superman movie but we seem to be getting closer. At least Hollywood is finally realizing that the potential is there.

__________________I enjoy comic book adaptations but I'm a comic book fan first and foremost. Not a comic book movie fan.

9/10 - Not perfect but still great. There were moments that I got the chills.

I've talked with many friends who have seen it and honestly a good majority of them thought it was ok or just horrible. Just horrible is a bit much in my opinion and cannot really see how someone could think it was that bad. Then they start knitpicking every little thing, which to me is going way too far. I think the Dark Knight is about as good as you can get for a comic book movie, but if I were to sit there and knitpick it I could talk myself into thinking it was awful too. I honestly can't believe how split the reviews are of this film when it comes to fans and the GA.